Master calls on rules committee to solve riddle of the costs of budgeting – Litigation Futures

Posted August 16th, 2017 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, documents, judges, news by sally

‘A High Court Master has called on the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) to resolve the “tension” between the need to “spell out in the eventual bill” the costs of costs budgeting and to include them in Precedent H.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th August 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court rules on fixed costs for interim applications – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 11th, 2017 in advocacy, civil procedure rules, costs, news by tracey

‘A regional costs judge has ruled in favour of claimants in the latest hearing to consider the issue of fixed costs for interim applications.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 11th August 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Pre-Action Correspondence: What to do if you get a Stroppy Letter ……. or worse – NIPC Law

‘On Wednesday I stressed the importance of pre-action correspondence and how the drafting of a letter before claim can make all the difference between getting what you want quickly and cheaply through focused negotiation and precipitating an expensive and possibly protracted law suit in Pre-Action Correspondence – Not Just a Box to be ticked or a Hoop to be jumped through 2 Aug 2017. Today, I shall tell you what to do if you receive a letter accusing you of infringing a patent or some other intellectual property right.’

Full Story

NIPC Law, 4th August 2017

Source: nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk

Jackson lays out plan for fixed costs with warning that it’s not his job to protect profession – Legal Futures

Posted August 1st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, costs capping orders, news by sally

‘Lord Justice Jackson has today put forward his vision for extending fixed recoverable costs (FRC), but warned that it was not his job to protect the junior Bar or any other part of the profession in doing so.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 31st July 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Part 36 : THE Court’s Approach Following Disclosure of Existence of an Offer – Zenith PI Blog

Posted July 31st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, judges, news, part 36 offers, shareholders by sally

‘In a long running shareholder dispute, the claimant company sought its costs from the defendants. The defendants had made 3 Part 36 offers in respect of the claimants claim against them. The judge had determined a number of issues in a hearing in November 2016, however there were other remaining issues to be tried. The court was made aware of the fact, but NOT the content, of the offers.’

Full Story

Zenith PI Blog, 31st July 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Jackson urges solicitors to sort out accidental disclosure of privileged material between themselves – Litigation Futures

Posted July 21st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, disclosure, news, privilege, solicitors by tracey

‘Litigators should sort out the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents in a grown-up manner without taking up the time of the court, the Court of Appeal has ruled as it granted an order to delete a privileged email that had been accidentally handed over.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 20th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule committee decides against revisiting budgeting limit for PI cases despite discount rate impact – Litigation Futures

Posted July 18th, 2017 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has decided against changing the financial threshold for costs budgeting in high-value personal injury cases, despite the prospect of the new discount rate taking a significant number of claims out of the regime.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 17th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule committee takes ‘softly, softly’ approach to expanding approach to hot-tubbing – Litigation Futures

Posted July 14th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, expert witnesses, news, practice directions by tracey

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) agreed minor variations that judges can adopt in orders for concurrent expert evidence – known as “hot-tubbing” – but acknowledged the changes it has approved to the CPR are “not as radical” as had been recommended by the Civil Justice Council (CJC).’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 14th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court of Appeal QOCS decision provides claimant insurers comfort, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 11th, 2017 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, news by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) should apply where an injured party has the right to pursue compensation against an organisation such as an insurance company or tour operator, rather than the wrongdoer.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th July 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Major boost for claimants with Court of Appeal QOCS ruling – Litigation Futures

‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

How does the costs budget affect the final bill? – Court of Appeal provides guidance in Harrison – Zenith PI

‘Recent uncertainty as to how a costs budget impacts on the final bill in relation to both incurred and estimated costs has, to some extent, been resolved by the judgment in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 792.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 6th July 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Rule committee warns lawyers they risk “a solution being imposed” on credit hire cases – Litigation Futures

Posted July 6th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, consultations, consumer credit, insurance, news by sally

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has warned lawyers involved in the “highly contentious area” of credit hire litigation that if they fail to agree a new model order for directions, they risk “a solution being imposed”.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 6th July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Defendant Secures non-party Costs order against Credit Hire Organisation – Park Square Barristers

‘In this Judgment handed down last week, the Court considered the potential for credit hire companies, who were not parties to the litigation, to be the subject of costs orders. The Appellant car hire company was the subject of such a non-party costs order at first instance and appealed to the High Court. The decision is one which anyone involved in credit hire should be aware of.

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 29th June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Strike out of Claim due to Solicitor’s failure to comply with Court Orders – Park Square Barristers

‘In Reece Gladwin v Adrian Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) the Court was concerned with an appeal by the Defendant in a road traffic accident claim against a decision to grant the Claimant relief from sanctions, following late service of the Claimant’s witness evidence.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 23rd June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Nicholas Siddall on Employment Tribunal Costs: New Guidance – Littleton Chambers

Posted July 5th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, employment tribunals, judgments, news by sally

‘Nicholas Siddall analyses the recent judgment of the EAT in Swissport v Exley & Ors [2017] UKEAT/007/16 (Slade J) in which he successfully appeared and the interesting observations therein made by the EAT as to the correct approach to assessing costs in the Employment Tribunal.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 30th June 2017

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Is an RTA Insurer Liable for an Unidentified Defendant? – Park Square Barristers

‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Media litigators unhappy with procedure and costs budgeting – Litigation Futures

‘Lawyers and other users of the new media and communications list are unhappy with how the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) apply to the field, and particularly costs budgeting, according to the outcome of a consultation launched by Mr Justice Warby.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 3rd July 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule committee opts for straightforward approach to hot-tubbing – Litigation Futures

Posted June 27th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, expert witnesses, news by tracey

‘Concurrent expert evidence – known as hot-tubbing – should only be carried out in the “classic” manner where experts are sworn and give evidence at the same time, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has decided.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 27th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Drawing the Line: case management and allegations of judicial bias in the family courts – Family Law Week

‘Jennifer Youngs and Vondez Phipps, pupil barristers at 42 Bedford Row, summarise the circumstances in which judicial conduct at a case management hearing might form the basis of an application for recusal, and provide guidance to practitioners as to the manner in which such an application might be made.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 22nd June 2017

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Solicitors’ LLP not a litigant in person when acting for itself in proceedings, Court of Appeal says – Litigation Futures

‘A law firm LLP which acted for itself in legal proceedings is not a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Court of Appeal has held.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com